banner



Home  ›  Which Scientists Classify Species Using An Organism's Physical Apperance And Genetic Makeup

Which Scientists Classify Species Using An Organism's Physical Apperance And Genetic Makeup

Written By Sunday, May 8, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Basic unit of measurement of taxonomic classification, below genus

Life Domain Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species

In biology, a species is the bones unit of nomenclature and a taxonomic rank of an organism, every bit well as a unit of biodiversity. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any 2 individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. Other ways of defining species include their karyotype, Dna sequence, morphology, behaviour or ecological niche. In add-on, paleontologists use the concept of the chronospecies since fossil reproduction cannot be examined.

The well-nigh recent rigorous estimate for the total number of species of eukaryotes is betwixt eight and 8.seven million.[one] [ii] [3] However, just about 14% of these had been described by 2011.[3]

All species (except viruses) are given a 2-part name, a "binomial". The first part of a binomial is the genus to which the species belongs. The 2d part is chosen the specific name or the specific epithet (in botanical nomenclature, as well sometimes in zoological nomenclature). For instance, Boa constrictor is ane of the species of the genus Boa, with constrictor being the species's epithet.

While the definitions given higher up may seem adequate at first glance, when looked at more closely they represent problematic species concepts. For example, the boundaries between closely related species become unclear with hybridisation, in a species complex of hundreds of similar microspecies, and in a ring species. Too, among organisms that reproduce only asexually, the concept of a reproductive species breaks downwardly, and each clone is potentially a microspecies. Although none of these are entirely satisfactory definitions, and while the concept of species may not be a perfect model of life, it is still an incredibly useful tool to scientists and conservationists for studying life on Earth, regardless of the theoretical difficulties. If species were fixed and clearly distinct from one some other, in that location would be no problem, only evolutionary processes crusade species to change. This obliges taxonomists to make up one's mind, for example, when enough change has occurred to declare that a lineage should be divided into multiple chronospecies, or when populations have diverged to have enough distinct character states to be described as cladistic species.

Species were seen from the fourth dimension of Aristotle until the 18th century equally stock-still categories that could exist arranged in a hierarchy, the peachy chain of being. In the 19th century, biologists grasped that species could evolve given sufficient time. Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species explained how species could arise past natural choice. That understanding was greatly extended in the 20th century through genetics and population ecology. Genetic variability arises from mutations and recombination, while organisms themselves are mobile, leading to geographical isolation and genetic migrate with varying selection pressures. Genes tin sometimes be exchanged between species by horizontal cistron transfer; new species tin arise rapidly through hybridisation and polyploidy; and species may go extinct for a variety of reasons. Viruses are a special case, driven by a balance of mutation and selection, and can be treated equally quasispecies.

Definition [edit]

Biologists and taxonomists have made many attempts to define species, beginning from morphology and moving towards genetics. Early taxonomists such as Linnaeus had no pick just to describe what they saw: this was later formalised equally the typological or morphological species concept. Ernst Mayr emphasised reproductive isolation, but this, like other species concepts, is difficult or fifty-fifty incommunicable to test.[4] [v] Later biologists accept tried to refine Mayr's definition with the recognition and cohesion concepts, amidst others.[half dozen] Many of the concepts are quite similar or overlap, so they are not like shooting fish in a barrel to count: the biologist R. L. Mayden recorded near 24 concepts,[vii] and the philosopher of science John Wilkins counted 26.[4] Wilkins further grouped the species concepts into seven basic kinds of concepts: (1) agamospecies for asexual organisms (2) biospecies for reproductively isolated sexual organisms (3) ecospecies based on ecological niches (4) evolutionary species based on lineage (5) genetic species based on genetic pool (6) morphospecies based on class or phenotype and (7) taxonomic species, a species as determined by a taxonomist.[8]

Typological or morphological species [edit]

All developed Eurasian bluish tits share the same coloration, unmistakably identifying the morphospecies.[9]

A typological species is a grouping of organisms in which individuals conform to certain stock-still properties (a type), so that even pre-literate people oftentimes recognise the aforementioned taxon as do mod taxonomists.[x] [11] The clusters of variations or phenotypes within specimens (such every bit longer or shorter tails) would differentiate the species. This method was used as a "classical" method of determining species, such as with Linnaeus early in evolutionary theory. However, dissimilar phenotypes are not necessarily different species (e.thousand. a four-winged Drosophila born to a two-winged mother is not a dissimilar species). Species named in this manner are called morphospecies.[12] [13]

In the 1970s, Robert R. Sokal, Theodore J. Crovello and Peter Sneath proposed a variation on the morphological species concept, a phenetic species, defined as a set up of organisms with a like phenotype to each other, but a different phenotype from other sets of organisms.[14] It differs from the morphological species concept in including a numerical measure of distance or similarity to cluster entities based on multivariate comparisons of a reasonably large number of phenotypic traits.[fifteen]

Recognition and cohesion species [edit]

A mate-recognition species is a group of sexually reproducing organisms that recognise 1 some other as potential mates.[16] [17] Expanding on this to allow for post-mating isolation, a cohesion species is the most inclusive population of individuals having the potential for phenotypic cohesion through intrinsic cohesion mechanisms; no affair whether populations can hybridise successfully, they are withal distinct cohesion species if the corporeality of hybridisation is insufficient to completely mix their respective gene pools.[18] A further development of the recognition concept is provided past the biosemiotic concept of species.[19]

Genetic similarity and barcode species [edit]

In microbiology, genes tin move freely even between distantly related bacteria, perchance extending to the whole bacterial domain. Every bit a rule of thumb, microbiologists take assumed that kinds of Leaner or Archaea with 16S ribosomal RNA cistron sequences more similar than 97% to each other need to be checked by Dna-DNA hybridisation to decide if they belong to the same species or not. (See [20] This concept was narrowed in 2006 to a similarity of 98.7%.[21]

The average nucleotide identity method quantifies genetic distance between entire genomes, using regions of virtually 10,000 base pairs. With plenty information from genomes of one genus, algorithms tin be used to categorize species, as for Pseudomonas avellanae in 2013,[22] and for all sequenced bacteria and archaea since 2020.[23]

DNA barcoding has been proposed as a way to distinguish species suitable even for non-specialists to utilize.[24] One of the barcodes is a region of mitochondrial DNA inside the gene for cytochrome c oxidase. A database, Barcode of Life Information Systems, contains DNA barcode sequences from over 190,000 species.[25] [26] Nonetheless, scientists such as Rob DeSalle have expressed business concern that classical taxonomy and Deoxyribonucleic acid barcoding, which they consider a misnomer, need to be reconciled, as they circumscribe species differently.[27] Genetic introgression mediated past endosymbionts and other vectors tin can further make barcodes ineffective in the identification of species.[28]

Phylogenetic or cladistic species [edit]

The cladistic or phylogenetic species concept is that a species is the smallest lineage which is distinguished by a unique ready of either genetic or morphological traits. No claim is made about reproductive isolation, making the concept useful likewise in palaeontology where but fossil show is available.

A phylogenetic or cladistic species is "the smallest aggregation of populations (sexual) or lineages (asexual) diagnosable by a unique combination of character states in comparable individuals (semaphoronts)".[29] The empirical basis – observed graphic symbol states – provides the bear witness to support hypotheses well-nigh evolutionarily divergent lineages that take maintained their hereditary integrity through time and space.[30] [31] [32] [33] Molecular markers may exist used to decide diagnostic genetic differences in the nuclear or mitochondrial DNA of diverse species.[34] [29] [35] For example, in a report done on fungi, studying the nucleotide characters using cladistic species produced the well-nigh accurate results in recognising the numerous fungi species of all the concepts studied.[35] [36] Versions of the phylogenetic species concept that emphasise monophyly or diagnosability[37] may atomic number 82 to splitting of existing species, for example in Bovidae, by recognising old subspecies as species, despite the fact that there are no reproductive barriers, and populations may intergrade morphologically.[38] Others have called this approach taxonomic inflation, diluting the species concept and making taxonomy unstable.[39] Yet others defend this approach, considering "taxonomic aggrandizement" debasing and labelling the opposing view as "taxonomic conservatism"; challenge information technology is politically expedient to divide species and recognise smaller populations at the species level, because this means they tin can more hands exist included as endangered in the IUCN red list and tin can attract conservation legislation and funding.[forty]

Dissimilar the biological species concept, a cladistic species does not rely on reproductive isolation – its criteria are independent of processes that are integral in other concepts.[29] Therefore, it applies to asexual lineages.[34] [35] However, it does non ever provide clear cut and intuitively satisfying boundaries between taxa, and may crave multiple sources of evidence, such every bit more than than 1 polymorphic locus, to requite plausible results.[35]

Evolutionary species [edit]

An evolutionary species, suggested by George Gaylord Simpson in 1951, is "an entity composed of organisms which maintains its identity from other such entities through fourth dimension and over infinite, and which has its own independent evolutionary fate and historical tendencies".[7] [41] This differs from the biological species concept in embodying persistence over time. Wiley and Mayden stated that they meet the evolutionary species concept as "identical" to Willi Hennig's species-as-lineages concept, and asserted that the biological species concept, "the several versions" of the phylogenetic species concept, and the thought that species are of the same kind equally higher taxa are not suitable for biodiversity studies (with the intention of estimating the number of species accurately). They farther suggested that the concept works for both asexual and sexually-reproducing species.[42] A version of the concept is Kevin de Queiroz's "General Lineage Concept of Species".[43]

Ecological species [edit]

An ecological species is a set of organisms adjusted to a detail set of resources, called a niche, in the environment. According to this concept, populations form the discrete phenetic clusters that we recognise as species because the ecological and evolutionary processes controlling how resource are divided upward tend to produce those clusters.[44]

Genetic species [edit]

A genetic species as divers by Robert Baker and Robert Bradley is a set of genetically isolated interbreeding populations. This is similar to Mayr's Biological Species Concept, but stresses genetic rather than reproductive isolation.[45] In the 21st century, a genetic species tin can be established past comparison DNA sequences, merely other methods were available before, such equally comparing karyotypes (sets of chromosomes) and allozymes (enzyme variants).[46]

Evolutionarily significant unit [edit]

An evolutionarily pregnant unit (ESU) or "wildlife species"[47] is a population of organisms considered distinct for purposes of conservation.[48]

Chronospecies [edit]

A chronospecies is divers in a single lineage (solid line) whose morphology changes with time. At some signal, palaeontologists guess that enough change has occurred that two species (A and B), separated in time and anatomy, once existed.

In palaeontology, with only comparative anatomy (morphology) from fossils as testify, the concept of a chronospecies can be applied. During anagenesis (evolution, not necessarily involving branching), palaeontologists seek to identify a sequence of species, each ane derived from the phyletically extinct one before through continuous, tedious and more or less uniform change. In such a time sequence, palaeontologists assess how much alter is required for a morphologically distinct form to be considered a different species from its ancestors.[49] [50] [51] [52]

Viral quasispecies [edit]

Viruses have enormous populations, are doubtfully living since they consist of little more a string of Dna or RNA in a protein coat, and mutate rapidly. All of these factors brand conventional species concepts largely inapplicable.[53] A viral quasispecies is a group of genotypes related past like mutations, competing within a highly mutagenic environs, and hence governed past a mutation–pick residue. It is predicted that a viral quasispecies at a low but evolutionarily neutral and highly continued (that is, flat) region in the fitness landscape will outcompete a quasispecies located at a higher but narrower fitness top in which the surrounding mutants are unfit, "the quasispecies effect" or the "survival of the flattest". In that location is no suggestion that a viral quasispecies resembles a traditional biological species.[54] [55] [56] The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses has since 1962 developed a universal taxonomic scheme for viruses; this has stabilised viral taxonomy.[57] [58] [59]

Taxonomy and naming [edit]

A cougar, mountain lion, panther, or puma, among other common names: its scientific name is Puma concolor.

Common and scientific names [edit]

The commonly used names for kinds of organisms are often ambiguous: "true cat" could mean the domestic cat, Felis catus, or the true cat family, Felidae. Some other problem with common names is that they often vary from place to place, so that puma, cougar, catamount, panther, painter and mount king of beasts all mean Puma concolor in various parts of America, while "panther" may also mean the jaguar (Panthera onca) of Latin America or the leopard (Panthera pardus) of Africa and Asia. In contrast, the scientific names of species are chosen to be unique and universal; they are in two parts used together: the genus as in Puma, and the specific epithet as in concolor.[60] [61]

Species description [edit]

A species is given a taxonomic name when a type specimen is described formally, in a publication that assigns it a unique scientific name. The description typically provides means for identifying the new species, differentiating it from other previously described and related or confusable species and provides a validly published proper name (in botany) or an available name (in zoology) when the newspaper is accepted for publication. The type material is usually held in a permanent repository, often the research drove of a major museum or academy, that allows independent verification and the means to compare specimens.[62] [63] [64] Describers of new species are asked to choose names that, in the words of the International Code of Zoological Classification, are "advisable, compact, euphonious, memorable, and do not cause offence".[65]

Abbreviations [edit]

Books and articles sometimes intentionally do not identify species fully, using the abbreviation "sp." in the singular or "spp." (standing for species pluralis, the Latin for multiple species) in the plural in identify of the specific name or epithet (east.chiliad. Canis sp.). This commonly occurs when authors are confident that some individuals belong to a particular genus but are not certain to which verbal species they vest, as is common in paleontology.[66]

Authors may also use "spp." as a brusk style of saying that something applies to many species within a genus, but non to all. If scientists mean that something applies to all species within a genus, they use the genus name without the specific name or epithet. The names of genera and species are ordinarily printed in italics. However, abbreviations such as "sp." should non be italicised.[66]

When a species's identity is non articulate, a specialist may employ "cf." before the epithet to indicate that confirmation is required. The abbreviations "nr." (virtually) or "aff." (affine) may be used when the identity is unclear but when the species appears to be similar to the species mentioned after.[66]

Identification codes [edit]

With the rise of online databases, codes take been devised to provide identifiers for species that are already defined, including:

  • National Eye for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) employs a numeric 'taxid' or Taxonomy identifier, a "stable unique identifier", east.chiliad., the taxid of Homo sapiens is 9606.[67]
  • Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) employs a three- or four-letter code for a limited number of organisms; in this code, for instance, H. sapiens is but hsa.[68]
  • UniProt employs an "organism mnemonic" of not more five alphanumeric characters, e.g., HUMAN for H. sapiens.[69]
  • Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) provides a unique number for each species. The LSID for Human sapiens is urn:lsid:catalogueoflife.org:taxon:4da6736d-d35f-11e6-9d3f-bc764e092680:col20170225.[70]

Lumping and splitting [edit]

The naming of a detail species, including which genus (and higher taxa) it is placed in, is a hypothesis about the evolutionary relationships and distinguishability of that group of organisms. As further information comes to mitt, the hypothesis may exist corroborated or refuted. Sometimes, especially in the past when communication was more than difficult, taxonomists working in isolation have given ii distinct names to individual organisms later on identified as the same species. When 2 species names are discovered to employ to the same species, the older species proper name is given priority and usually retained, and the newer name considered as a inferior synonym, a process called synonymy. Dividing a taxon into multiple, often new, taxa is called splitting. Taxonomists are often referred to as "lumpers" or "splitters" by their colleagues, depending on their personal approach to recognising differences or commonalities betwixt organisms.[71] [72] [66] The circumscription of taxa, considered a taxonomic decision at the discretion of cognizant specialists, is not governed by the Codes of Zoological or Botanical Nomenclature.

Wide and narrow senses [edit]

The nomenclatural codes that guide the naming of species, including the ICZN for animals and the ICN for plants, practice not make rules for defining the boundaries of the species. Research can change the boundaries, too known equally circumscription, based on new prove. Species may so need to be distinguished by the purlieus definitions used, and in such cases the names may be qualified with sensu stricto ("in the narrow sense") to denote usage in the exact meaning given by an writer such as the person who named the species, while the antonym sensu lato ("in the broad sense") denotes a wider usage, for instance including other subspecies. Other abbreviations such as "auct." ("author"), and qualifiers such as "non" ("not") may be used to further clarify the sense in which the specified authors delineated or described the species.[66] [73] [74]

Mayr'south biological species concept [edit]

Most mod textbooks make apply of Ernst Mayr's 1942 definition,[75] [76] known as the Biological Species Concept as a ground for further discussion on the definition of species. It is besides called a reproductive or isolation concept. This defines a species as[77]

groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.[77]

It has been argued that this definition is a natural issue of the effect of sexual reproduction on the dynamics of natural selection.[78] [79] [80] [81] Mayr's use of the adjective "potentially" has been a point of debate; some interpretations exclude unusual or artificial matings that occur only in captivity, or that involve animals capable of mating only that do not commonly do so in the wild.[77]

The species problem [edit]

It is difficult to define a species in a way that applies to all organisms.[82] The debate nigh species concepts is chosen the species trouble.[77] [83] [84] [85] The problem was recognised even in 1859, when Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species:

No ane definition has satisfied all naturalists; withal every naturalist knows vaguely what he ways when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation.[86]

When Mayr'due south concept breaks down [edit]

A unproblematic textbook definition, post-obit Mayr'due south concept, works well for about multi-celled organisms, simply breaks down in several situations:

  • When organisms reproduce asexually, as in single-celled organisms such equally leaner and other prokaryotes,[87] and parthenogenetic or apomictic multi-celled organisms. Barcoding and phylogenetics are commonly used in these cases.[88] [89] [90] The term quasispecies is sometimes used for rapidly mutating entities like viruses.[91] [92]
  • When scientists do not know whether two morphologically like groups of organisms are capable of interbreeding; this is the case with all extinct life-forms in palaeontology, every bit breeding experiments are not possible.[93]
  • When hybridisation permits substantial gene catamenia betwixt species.[94]
  • In ring species, when members of next populations in a widely continuous distribution range interbreed successfully only members of more than distant populations do not.[95]

Willow warbler

Chiffchaff

Species identification is made hard by discordance between molecular and morphological investigations; these tin exist categorised as two types: (i) one morphology, multiple lineages (e.g. morphological convergence, cryptic species) and (two) one lineage, multiple morphologies (due east.g. phenotypic plasticity, multiple life-cycle stages).[96] In improver, horizontal gene transfer (HGT) makes information technology difficult to define a species.[97] All species definitions assume that an organism acquires its genes from one or two parents very similar the "daughter" organism, just that is not what happens in HGT.[98] There is strong evidence of HGT betwixt very unlike groups of prokaryotes, and at least occasionally between dissimilar groups of eukaryotes,[97] including some crustaceans and echinoderms.[99]

The evolutionary biologist James Mallet concludes that

in that location is no easy way to tell whether related geographic or temporal forms belong to the aforementioned or unlike species. Species gaps can exist verified only locally and at a point of time. One is forced to admit that Darwin's insight is correct: any local reality or integrity of species is greatly reduced over big geographic ranges and time periods.[xviii]

Aggregates of microspecies [edit]

The species concept is further weakened past the beingness of microspecies, groups of organisms, including many plants, with very trivial genetic variability, usually forming species aggregates.[100] For example, the dandelion Taraxacum officinale and the blackberry Rubus fruticosus are aggregates with many microspecies—possibly 400 in the example of the blackberry and over 200 in the dandelion,[101] complicated by hybridisation, apomixis and polyploidy, making cistron flow between populations difficult to determine, and their taxonomy debatable.[102] [103] [104] Species complexes occur in insects such equally Heliconius collywobbles,[105] vertebrates such as Hypsiboas treefrogs,[106] and fungi such every bit the wing agaric.[107]

  • The butterfly genus Heliconius contains many similar species.

Hybridisation [edit]

Natural hybridisation presents a challenge to the concept of a reproductively isolated species, as fertile hybrids permit gene catamenia between two populations. For example, the carrion crow Corvus corone and the hooded crow Corvus cornix appear and are classified as separate species, still they hybridise freely where their geographical ranges overlap.[108]

  • Hybridisation of carrion and hooded crows permits gene period between 'species'

  • Hybrid with dark belly, night gray nape

Band species [edit]

A band species is a connected series of neighbouring populations, each of which tin sexually interbreed with adjacent related populations, just for which there exist at to the lowest degree two "terminate" populations in the serial, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though in that location is a potential gene flow between each "linked" population.[109] Such not-breeding, though genetically connected, "end" populations may co-exist in the aforementioned region thus endmost the ring. Ring species thus present a difficulty for any species concept that relies on reproductive isolation.[110] However, band species are at best rare. Proposed examples include the herring gull-lesser black-backed dupe complex around the North pole, the Ensatina eschscholtzii grouping of xix populations of salamanders in America,[111] and the green warbler in Asia,[112] just many and then-called ring species take turned out to be the result of misclassification leading to questions on whether in that location really are any ring species.[113] [114] [115] [116]

  • Seven "species" of Larus gulls interbreed in a ring around the Arctic.

Alter [edit]

Species are subject to change, whether by evolving into new species,[117] exchanging genes with other species,[118] merging with other species or past becoming extinct.[119]

Speciation [edit]

The evolutionary process past which biological populations evolve to get distinct or reproductively isolated as species is called speciation.[120] [121] Charles Darwin was the first to describe the role of natural choice in speciation in his 1859 book The Origin of Species.[122] Speciation depends on a measure of reproductive isolation, a reduced gene period. This occurs about hands in allopatric speciation, where populations are separated geographically and can diverge gradually equally mutations accumulate. Reproductive isolation is threatened by hybridisation, but this tin exist selected against one time a pair of populations have incompatible alleles of the aforementioned cistron, every bit described in the Bateson–Dobzhansky–Muller model.[117] A different machinery, phyletic speciation, involves one lineage gradually changing over time into a new and distinct course, without increasing the number of resultant species.[123]

Exchange of genes between species [edit]

Horizontal gene transfer between organisms of different species, either through hybridisation, antigenic shift, or reassortment, is sometimes an important source of genetic variation. Viruses can transfer genes between species. Bacteria can exchange plasmids with leaner of other species, including some apparently distantly related ones in different phylogenetic domains, making assay of their relationships difficult, and weakening the concept of a bacterial species.[124] [97] [125] [118]

Louis-Marie Bobay and Howard Ochman suggest, based on analysis of the genomes of many types of bacteria, that they can often be grouped "into communities that regularly bandy genes", in much the same manner that plants and animals tin can exist grouped into reproductively isolated convenance populations. Leaner may thus form species, analogous to Mayr's biological species concept, consisting of asexually reproducing populations that exchange genes past homologous recombination.[126] [127]

Extinction [edit]

A species is extinct when the last individual of that species dies, simply it may exist functionally extinct well before that moment. It is estimated that over 99 percent of all species that always lived on Earth, some v billion species, are at present extinct. Some of these were in mass extinctions such as those at the ends of the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic and Cretaceous periods. Mass extinctions had a variety of causes including volcanic activity, climate modify, and changes in oceanic and atmospheric chemical science, and they in turn had major furnishings on World'due south ecology, atmosphere, land surface and waters.[128] [129] Another form of extinction is through the assimilation of one species by some other through hybridization. The resulting single species has been termed as a "compilospecies".[130]

Practical implications [edit]

Biologists and conservationists need to categorise and identify organisms in the course of their work. Difficulty assigning organisms reliably to a species constitutes a threat to the validity of research results, for case making measurements of how abundant a species is in an ecosystem moot. Surveys using a phylogenetic species concept reported 48% more than species and appropriately smaller populations and ranges than those using nonphylogenetic concepts; this was termed "taxonomic aggrandizement",[131] which could cause a false appearance of modify to the number of endangered species and consequent political and practical difficulties.[132] [133] Some observers claim that there is an inherent conflict between the desire to sympathise the processes of speciation and the need to identify and to categorise.[133]

Conservation laws in many countries make special provisions to prevent species from going extinct. Hybridization zones between ii species, one that is protected and one that is non, have sometimes led to conflicts between lawmakers, state owners and conservationists. One of the classic cases in Due north America is that of the protected northern spotted owl which hybridises with the unprotected California spotted owl and the barred owl; this has led to legal debates.[134] It has been argued that the species problem is created by the varied uses of the concept of species, and that the solution is to abandon it and all other taxonomic ranks, and use unranked monophyletic groups instead. It has been argued, too, that since species are non comparable, counting them is not a valid mensurate of biodiversity; alternative measures of phylogenetic biodiversity accept been proposed.[135] [136]

History [edit]

Classical forms [edit]

In his biology, Aristotle used the term γένος (génos) to mean a kind, such as a bird or fish, and εἶδος (eidos) to hateful a specific form within a kind, such as (within the birds) the crane, eagle, crow, or sparrow. These terms were translated into Latin as "genus" and "species", though they do non correspond to the Linnean terms thus named; today the birds are a class, the cranes are a family unit, and the crows a genus. A kind was distinguished past its attributes; for instance, a bird has feathers, a beak, wings, a hard-shelled egg, and warm claret. A class was distinguished by being shared by all its members, the young inheriting whatsoever variations they might take from their parents. Aristotle believed all kinds and forms to be singled-out and unchanging. His arroyo remained influential until the Renaissance.[137]

Stock-still species [edit]

John Ray believed that species breed true and do not change, even though variations exist.

When observers in the Early Modern period began to develop systems of arrangement for living things, they placed each kind of animal or establish into a context. Many of these early delineation schemes would now be considered whimsical: schemes included consanguinity based on colour (all plants with yellow flowers) or behaviour (snakes, scorpions and certain bitter ants). John Ray, an English naturalist, was the outset to attempt a biological definition of species in 1686, as follows:

No surer benchmark for determining species has occurred to me than the distinguishing features that perpetuate themselves in propagation from seed. Thus, no matter what variations occur in the individuals or the species, if they spring from the seed of ane and the aforementioned plant, they are accidental variations and not such as to distinguish a species ... Animals too that differ specifically preserve their distinct species permanently; one species never springs from the seed of some other nor vice versa.[138]

In the 18th century, the Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus classified organisms according to shared concrete characteristics, and not simply based upon differences.[139] He established the idea of a taxonomic hierarchy of classification based upon observable characteristics and intended to reflect natural relationships.[140] [141] At the time, all the same, information technology was still widely believed that there was no organic connexion betwixt species, no matter how similar they appeared. This view was influenced by European scholarly and religious instruction, which held that the categories of life are dictated by God, forming an Aristotelian hierarchy, the scala naturae or great chain of being. However, whether or not it was supposed to be fixed, the scala (a ladder) inherently implied the possibility of climbing.[142]

Mutability [edit]

In viewing bear witness of hybridisation, Linnaeus recognised that species were not fixed and could change; he did non consider that new species could emerge and maintained a view of divinely fixed species that may modify through processes of hybridisation or acclimatisation.[143] Past the 19th century, naturalists understood that species could change form over time, and that the history of the planet provided plenty time for major changes. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, in his 1809 Zoological Philosophy, described the transmutation of species, proposing that a species could modify over fourth dimension, in a radical departure from Aristotelian thinking.[144]

In 1859, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace provided a compelling account of evolution and the formation of new species. Darwin argued that information technology was populations that evolved, non individuals, by natural option from naturally occurring variation among individuals.[145] This required a new definition of species. Darwin concluded that species are what they announced to be: ideas, provisionally useful for naming groups of interacting individuals, writing:

I wait at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other ... It does non essentially differ from the discussion diversity, which is given to less distinct and more than fluctuating forms. The term variety, over again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is besides applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake.[146]

Come across also [edit]

  • Cline
  • Encyclopedia of Life
  • Endangered species
  • Global biodiversity
  • Lists of animal species
  • Systematics
  • Lists of creature species
  • Lists of plant species

References [edit]

  1. ^ Wilson, Edward O. (iii March 2018). "Stance: The 8 Million Species Nosotros Don't Know". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 25 January 2020.
  2. ^ Borenstein, South. (2019). "UN study: Humans accelerating extinction of other species". Associated Press.
  3. ^ a b Mora, Camilo; Tittensor, Derek P.; Adl, Sina; Simpson, Alastair G. B.; Worm, Boris (23 August 2011). "How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean?". PLOS Biology. nine (8): e1001127. doi:10.1371/periodical.pbio.1001127. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC3160336. PMID 21886479.
  4. ^ a b "Species Concepts". Scientific American. 20 April 2012. Archived from the original on xiv March 2017. Retrieved xiv March 2017.
  5. ^ Mallet, James (1995). "A species definition for the modern synthesis". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 10 (seven): 294–299. doi:ten.1016/0169-5347(95)90031-4. PMID 21237047.
  6. ^
  7. ^ a b Mayden, R. Fifty. (1997). Claridge, Chiliad. F.; Dawah, H. A.; Wilson, M. R. (eds.). A hierarchy of species concepts: the denouement of the species trouble. The Units of Biodiversity – Species in Practice Special Volume 54. Systematics Association.
  8. ^ Zachos 2016, p. 79.
  9. ^ Gooders, John (1986). Kingfisher Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Ireland. Kingfisher Books. p. 246. ISBN978-0-86272-139-eight.
  10. ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (1980). "A Quahog is a Quahog". In: The Panda'southward Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: Due west.Westward. Norton & Company. pp. 204–213. ISBN978-0-393-30023-9.
  11. ^ Maynard Smith, John (1989). Evolutionary Genetics. Oxford University Printing. pp. 273–274. ISBN978-0-19-854215-5.
  12. ^ Ruse, Michael (1969). "Definitions of Species in Biological science". The British Journal for the Philosophy of Scientific discipline. xx (2): 97–119. doi:x.1093/bjps/twenty.2.97. JSTOR 686173. S2CID 121580839.
  13. ^ Lewin, Ralph A. (1981). "Three Species Concepts". Taxon. 30 (3): 609–613. doi:10.2307/1219942. JSTOR 1219942.
  14. ^ Claridge, Dawah & Wilson 1997, p. 404
  15. ^ Ghiselin, Michael T. (1974). "A Radical Solution to the Species Problem". Systematic Biology. 23 (4): 536–544. doi:10.1093/sysbio/23.4.536.
  16. ^ Claridge et al.:408–409.
  17. ^ Paterson, H. E. H. (1985). Vrba, E. S. (ed.). Monograph No. four: The recognition concept of species. Species and Speciation. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum.
  18. ^ a b Mallet, James (28 September 1999). "Species, Concepts of" (PDF). In Calow, P. (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Ecology and Environmental Management. Blackwell. pp. 709–711. ISBN978-0-632-05546-3. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 Oct 2016.
  19. ^ Kull, Kalevi (2016). "The biosemiotic concept of the species". Biosemiotics. ix: 61–71. doi:ten.1007/s12304-016-9259-2. S2CID 18470078. Archived from the original on 7 February 2018.
  20. ^ Stackebrandt, East.; Goebel, B. M. (1994). "Taxonomic annotation: a place for Dna-Deoxyribonucleic acid reassociation and 16S rRNA sequence analysis in the present species definition in bacteriology". International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. 44 (4): 846–849. doi:ten.1099/00207713-44-4-846.
  21. ^ Stackebrandt, East.; Ebers, J. (2006). "Taxonomic parameters revisited: tarnished gold standards" (PDF). Microbiology Today. 33 (4): 152–155. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 March 2018.
  22. ^ State, Miriam; Hauser, Loren; Jun, Se-Ran; Nookaew, Intawat; Leuze, Michael R.; Ahn, Tae-Hyuk; Karpinets, Tatiana; Lund, Ole; Kora, Guruprased; Wassenaar, Trudy; Poudel, Suresh; Ussery, David W. (2015). "Insights from xx years of bacterial genome sequencing". Functional & Integrative Genomics. 15 (ii): 141–161. doi:10.1007/s10142-015-0433-four. PMC4361730. PMID 25722247. CC-BY icon.svg This article contains quotations from this source, which is available nether the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC Past 4.0) license.
  23. ^ Parks, D. H.; Chuvochina, 1000.; Chaumeil, P. A.; Rinke, C.; Mussig, A. J.; Hugenholtz, P. (September 2020). "A complete domain-to-species taxonomy for Bacteria and Archaea". Nature Biotechnology. 38 (nine): 1079–1086. bioRxivten.1101/771964. doi:x.1038/s41587-020-0501-8. PMID 32341564. S2CID 216560589.
  24. ^ "What Is DNA Barcoding?". Barcode of Life. Archived from the original on i July 2017. Retrieved 11 October 2017.
  25. ^ Ratnasingham, Sujeevan; Hebert, Paul D. Northward. (2007). "Assuming: The Barcode of Life Data Arrangement (http://www.barcodinglife.org)". Molecular Ecology Notes. 7 (3): 355–364. doi:10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.ten. PMC1890991. PMID 18784790.
  26. ^ Stoeckle, Marking (Nov–December 2013). "Deoxyribonucleic acid Barcoding Set up for Breakout". GeneWatch. 26 (5).
  27. ^ DeSalle, R.; Egan, M. Grand.; Siddall, Thou. (2005). "The unholy trinity: taxonomy, species delimitation and DNA barcoding". Philosophical Transactions of the Regal Society B: Biological Sciences. 360 (1462): 1905–1916. doi:ten.1098/rstb.2005.1722. PMC1609226. PMID 16214748.
  28. ^ Whitworth, T. L.; Dawson, R. D.; Magalon, H.; Baudry, Eastward. (2007). "Deoxyribonucleic acid barcoding cannot reliably identify species of the blowfly genus Protocalliphora (Diptera: Calliphoridae)". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 274 (1619): 1731–1739. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0062. PMC2493573. PMID 17472911.
  29. ^ a b c Nixon, K. C.; Wheeler, Q. D. (1990). "An amplification of the phylogenetic species concept". Cladistics. 6 (3): 211–223. doi:x.1111/j.1096-0031.1990.tb00541.x. S2CID 84095773.
  30. ^ Wheeler, Quentin D.; Platnick, Norman I. 2000. The phylogenetic species concept (sensu Wheeler & Platnick). In: Wheeler & Meier2000, pp. 55–69
  31. ^ Giraud, T.; Refrégier, G.; Le Gac, Thousand.; de Vienne, D. M.; Hood, M. Due east. (2008). "Speciation in Fungi". Fungal Genetics and Biology. 45 (6): 791–802. doi:x.1016/j.fgb.2008.02.001. PMID 18346919.
  32. ^ Bernardo, J. (2011). "A critical appraisement of the significant and diagnosability of cryptic evolutionary multifariousness, and its implications for conservation in the face up of climate change". In Hodkinson, T.; Jones, G.; Waldren, South.; Parnell, J. (eds.). Climate change, Ecology and Systematics. Systematics Association Special Series. Cambridge Academy Press. pp. 380–438. ISBN978-0-521-76609-8. .
  33. ^ Brower, Andrew V. Z. and Randall T. Schuh. (2021). Biological Systematics: Principles and Applications. Cornell Academy Printing, Ithaca, NY.
  34. ^ a b Giraud, T.; Refrégier, G.; Le Gac, M.; de Vienne, D. Grand.; Hood, M. E. (2008). "Speciation in Fungi". Fungal Genetics and Biology. 45 (6): 791–802. doi:10.1016/j.fgb.2008.02.001. PMID 18346919.
  35. ^ a b c d Taylor, J. W.; Jacobson, D. J.; Kroken, S.; Kasuga, T.; Geiser, D. M.; Hibbett, D. S.; Fisher, M. C. (2000). "Phylogenetic species recognition and species concepts in fungi". Fungal Genetics and Biology. 31 (1): 21–32. doi:10.1006/fgbi.2000.1228. PMID 11118132. S2CID 2551424.
  36. ^ Taylor, J. West.; Turner, E.; Townsend, J. P.; Dettman, J. R.; Jacobson, D. (2006). "Eukaryotic microbes, species recognition and the geographic limits of species: Examples from the kingdom Fungi". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Order B: Biological Sciences. 361 (1475): 1947–1963. doi:ten.1098/rstb.2006.1923. PMC1764934. PMID 17062413.
  37. ^ Zachos 2016, pp. 91–92.
  38. ^ Groves, C.; Grubb, P. 2011. Ungulate taxonomy. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Academy Press.
  39. ^ Heller, R.; Frandsen, P.; Lorenzen, Eastward. D.; Siegismund, H. R. (2013). "Are there really twice as many bovid species as we thought?". Systematic Biological science. 62 (3): 490–493. doi:10.1093/sysbio/syt004. PMID 23362112.
  40. ^ Cotterill, F.; Taylor, P.; Gippoliti, S.; et al. (2014). "Why 1 century of phenetics is enough: Response to 'are there really twice as many bovid species every bit we idea?'". Systematic Biology. 63 (5): 819–832. doi:ten.1093/sysbio/syu003. PMID 24415680.
  41. ^ Laporte, L. O. F. (1994). "Simpson on species". Journal of the History of Biology. 27 (1): 141–159. doi:10.1007/BF01058629. PMID 11639257. S2CID 34975382.
  42. ^ Wheeler & Meier 2000, pp. 70–92, 146–160, 198–208
  43. ^ de Queiroz, Kevin (1998). "The general lineage concept of species, species criteria, and the process of speciation". In D. J. Howard; S. H. Berlocher (eds.). Endless forms: species and speciation. Oxford Academy Press. pp. 57–75.
  44. ^ Ridley, Mark. "The Idea of Species". Evolution (2nd ed.). Blackwell Science. p. 719. ISBN978-0-86542-495-1.
  45. ^ Baker, Robert J.; Bradley, Robert D. (2006). "Speciation in Mammals and the Genetic Species Concept". Periodical of Mammalogy. 87 (4): 643–662. doi:ten.1644/06-MAMM-F-038R2.1. PMC2771874. PMID 19890476.
  46. ^ Baker, Robert J.; Bradley, Robert D. (2006). "Speciation in Mammals and the Genetic Species Concept". Journal of Mammalogy. 87 (4): 643–662. doi:10.1644/06-MAMM-F-038R2.1. PMC2771874. PMID 19890476.
  47. ^ Authorities of Canada. Committee on the Condition of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. "COSEWIC'southward Assessment Process and Criteria". Cosepac.gc.ca. Archived from the original on 12 April 2015. Retrieved seven April 2015.
  48. ^ DeWeerdt, Sarah (29 July 2002). "What Actually is an Evolutionarily Pregnant Unit?". University of Washington. Archived from the original on v February 2017. Retrieved one Dec 2016.
  49. ^ "Chronospecies". Oxford Reference. Archived from the original on i October 2014. Retrieved 12 Jan 2018.
  50. ^ Carr, Steven Chiliad. (2005). "Evolutionary species and chronospecies". Memorial Academy Newfoundland and Labrador. Archived from the original on ten March 2016. Retrieved 12 January 2018.
  51. ^ Dzik, J. (1985). "Typologic versus population concepts of chronospecies: implications for ammonite biostratigraphy" (PDF). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 30 (1–2): 71–92. Archived (PDF) from the original on xiii March 2017.
  52. ^ O'Brien, Michael J.; Lyman, R. Lee (2007). Applying Evolutionary Archeology: A Systematic Approach. Springer. pp. 146–149. ISBN978-0-306-47468-two. Archived from the original on seven February 2018.
  53. ^ Van Regenmortel, Marc H. Five. (2010). "Logical puzzles and scientific controversies: The nature of species, viruses and living organisms". Systematic and Practical Microbiology. 33 (1): 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2009.xi.001. PMID 20005655.
  54. ^ van Nimwegen, Erik; Crutchfield, James P.; Huynen, Martijn (August 1999). "Neutral evolution of mutational robustness". PNAS. 96 (17): 9716–9720. arXiv:adap-org/9903006. Bibcode:1999PNAS...96.9716V. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.17.9716. PMC22276. PMID 10449760.
  55. ^ Wilke, Claus O.; Wang, Jia Lan; Ofria, Charles; Lenski, Richard E.; Adami, Christoph (2001). "Evolution of digital organisms at high mutation rates leads to survival of the flattest" (PDF). Nature. 412 (6844): 331–333. Bibcode:2001Natur.412..331W. doi:x.1038/35085569. PMID 11460163. S2CID 1482925.
  56. ^ Elena, South. F.; Agudelo-Romero, P.; Carrasco, P.; et al. (2008). "Experimental evolution of plant RNA viruses". Heredity. 100 (5): 478–483. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6801088. PMC7094686. PMID 18253158.
  57. ^ Rex, Andrew M.Q.; Lefkowitz, E.; Adams, Thou. J.; Carstens, E. B. (2012). Virus Taxonomy Classification and Classification of Viruses: Ninth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Elsevier. ISBN978-0-12-384684-six. Archived from the original on 10 December 2017. Retrieved 13 April 2017.
  58. ^ Fauquet, C. M.; Fargette, D. (2005). "International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses and the iii,142 unassigned species". Virology Periodical. two: 64. doi:10.1186/1743-422X-two-64. PMC1208960. PMID 16105179.
  59. ^ Gibbs, A. J. (2013). "Viral taxonomy needs a jump make clean; its exploration era is over". Virology Journal. 10: 254. doi:10.1186/1743-422X-ten-254. PMC3751428. PMID 23938184.
  60. ^ "A Give-and-take About Species Names ..." Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce. Archived from the original on 24 March 2017. Retrieved xi March 2017.
  61. ^ Strop, Dave (19 June 2013). "What'southward in a name? Why scientific names are important". The Guardian. Archived from the original on xv February 2017. Retrieved xi March 2017.
  62. ^ One example of an abstruse of an article naming a new species can be found at Wellner, Southward.; Lodders, N.; Kämpfer, P. (2012). "Methylobacterium cerastii sp. nov., a novel species isolated from the leafage surface of Cerastium holosteoides". International Periodical of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 62 (Pt iv): 917–924. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.030767-0. PMID 21669927.
  63. ^ Hitchcock, A. S. (1921), "The Type Concept in Systematic Botany", American Periodical of Botany, 8 (5): 251–255, doi:10.2307/2434993, JSTOR 2434993
  64. ^ Nicholson, Dan H. "Botanical classification, types, & standard reference works". Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Department of Botany. Archived from the original on 16 September 2015. Retrieved 17 November 2015.
  65. ^ "International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Recommendation 25C". Archived from the original on viii June 2011. Retrieved 18 June 2011.
  66. ^ a b c d due east Winston, Judith Due east. (1999). Describing species. Practical taxonomic procedure for biologists. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 141–144.
  67. ^ "Home – Taxonomy – NCBI". Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. 19 October 2012. Archived from the original on seven February 2018. Retrieved 25 Nov 2012.
  68. ^ "KEGG Organisms: Complete Genomes". Genome.jp. Archived from the original on 14 October 2012. Retrieved 25 November 2012.
  69. ^ "Taxonomy". Uniprot.org. Archived from the original on 27 November 2012. Retrieved 25 Nov 2012.
  70. ^ "ITIS: Homo sapiens". Catalogue of Life. Archived from the original on 12 March 2017. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
  71. ^ Simpson, George Gaylord (1945). "The Principles of Classification and a Nomenclature of Mammals". Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 85: 23.
  72. ^ Chase, Bob (2005). "Upstart Antichrist". History Workshop Journal. lx (i): 202–206. doi:10.1093/hwj/dbi042. S2CID 201790420.
  73. ^ Wilson, Philip (2016). "sensu stricto, sensu lato". AZ of tree terms. Archived from the original on 10 January 2018. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
  74. ^ "Glossary: sensu". International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Archived from the original on 2 August 2017. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
  75. ^ Mayr, Ernst (1942). Systematics and the Origin of Species . New York: Columbia University Press.
  76. ^ Wheeler, pp. 17–29
  77. ^ a b c d de Queiroz, Yard. (2005). "Ernst Mayr and the mod concept of species". PNAS. 102 (Supplement ane): 6600–6607. Bibcode:2005PNAS..102.6600D. doi:10.1073/pnas.0502030102. PMC1131873. PMID 15851674.
  78. ^ Hopf, F. A.; Hopf, F. W. (1985). "The role of the Allee effect on species packing". Theoretical Population Biology. 27: 27–50. doi:10.1016/0040-5809(85)90014-0.
  79. ^ Bernstein, H.; Byerly, H. C.; Hopf, F. A.; Michod, R.Eastward. (1985). "Sex and the emergence of species". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 117 (4): 665–690. Bibcode:1985JThBi.117..665B. doi:x.1016/S0022-5193(85)80246-0. PMID 4094459.
  80. ^ Bernstein, Ballad; Bernstein, Harris (1991). Aging, sex, and Deoxyribonucleic acid repair. Boston: Bookish Press. ISBN978-0-12-092860-half dozen.
  81. ^ Michod, Richard E. (1995). Eros and Evolution: A Natural Philosophy of Sex . Addison-Wesley. ISBN978-0-201-44232-viii.
  82. ^ Hanage, William P. (2013), "Fuzzy species revisited", BMC Biology, xi (41): 41, doi:10.1186/1741-7007-11-41, PMC3626887, PMID 23587266
  83. ^ Koch, H. (2010). "Combining morphology and DNA barcoding resolves the taxonomy of Western Malagasy Liotrigona Moure, 1961" (PDF). African Invertebrates. 51 (2): 413–421. doi:10.5733/afin.051.0210. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 December 2016.
  84. ^ De Queiroz, K. (2007). "Species concepts and species delimitation". Systematic Biology. 56 (half dozen): 879–886. doi:10.1080/10635150701701083. PMID 18027281.
  85. ^ Fraser, C.; Alm, East. J.; Polz, M. F.; Spratt, B. Thousand.; Hanage, West. P. (2009). "The bacterial species challenge: making sense of genetic and ecological diversity". Science. 323 (5915): 741–746. Bibcode:2009Sci...323..741F. doi:10.1126/science.1159388. PMID 19197054. S2CID 15763831. closed access
  86. ^ "Darwin 1859 Chapter II, p. 59". Darwin-online.org.uk. Archived from the original on 21 October 2012. Retrieved 25 November 2012.
  87. ^ Gevers, Dirk; Cohan, Frederick 1000.; Lawrence, Jeffrey Chiliad.; Spratt, Brian Yard.; Coenye, Tom; Feil, Edward J.; Stackebrandt, Erko; De Peer, Yves Van; Vandamme, Peter; Thompson, Fabiano L.; Swings, Jean (2005). "Stance: Re-evaluating prokaryotic species". Nature Reviews Microbiology. iii (9): 733–nine. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1236. PMID 16138101. S2CID 41706247.
  88. ^ Templeton, A. R. (1989). "The significant of species and speciation: A genetic perspective". In Otte, D.; Endler, J. A. (eds.). Speciation and its Consequences. Sinauer Assembly. pp. 3–27.
  89. ^ Edward G. Reekie; Fakhri A. Bazzaz (2005). Reproductive allocation in plants. Bookish Printing. p. 99. ISBN978-0-12-088386-8. Archived from the original on 17 June 2013.
  90. ^ Rosselló-Mora, Ramon; Amann, Rudolf (January 2001). "The species concept for prokaryotes". FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 25 (1): 39–67. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.2001.tb00571.x. PMID 11152940.
  91. ^ Andino, Raul; Domingo, Esteban (2015). "Viral quasispecies". Virology. 479–480: 46–51. doi:10.1016/j.virol.2015.03.022. PMC4826558. PMID 25824477.
  92. ^ Biebricher, C. K.; Eigen, M. (2006). Quasispecies: Concept and Implications for Virology. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology. Vol. 299. Springer. pp. 1–31. doi:10.1007/3-540-26397-7_1. ISBN978-3-540-26397-5. PMID 16568894.
  93. ^ Teueman, A. Eastward. (2009). "The Species-Concept in Palaeontology". Geological Magazine. 61 (8): 355–360. Bibcode:1924GeoM...61..355T. doi:10.1017/S001675680008660X. Archived from the original on 14 March 2017.
  94. ^ Zachos 2016, p. 101.
  95. ^ Zachos 2016, pp. 156–157.
  96. ^ Lahr, D. J.; Laughinghouse, H. D.; Oliverio, A. Thousand.; Gao, F.; Katz, Fifty. A. (2014). "How discordant morphological and molecular evolution among microorganisms tin can revise our notions of biodiversity on Earth". BioEssays. 36 (ten): 950–959. doi:ten.1002/bies.201400056. PMC4288574. PMID 25156897.
  97. ^ a b c Melcher, Ulrich (2001). "Molecular genetics: Horizontal factor transfer". Oklahoma State University. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016.
  98. ^ Bapteste, East.; et al. (May 2005). "Practise orthologous cistron phylogenies really back up tree-thinking?". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 5 (33): 33. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-5-33. PMC1156881. PMID 15913459.
  99. ^ Williamson, David I. (2003). The Origins of Larvae. Kluwer. ISBN978-1-4020-1514-iv.
  100. ^ Heywood, V. H. (1962). "The 'species aggregate' in theory and do". In Heywood, 5. H.; Löve, Á. (eds.). Symposium on Biosystematics, Montreal, October 1962. pp. 26–36.
  101. ^ Pimentel, David (2014). Biological Invasions: Economic and Ecology Costs of Conflicting Plant, Animal, and Microbe Species. CRC Press. p. 92. ISBN978-1-4200-4166-eight. Archived from the original on vii February 2018.
  102. ^ Jarvis, C. E. (1992). "Lxx-Two Proposals for the Conservation of Types of Selected Linnaean Generic Names, the Study of Subcommittee 3C on the Lectotypification of Linnaean Generic Names". Taxon. 41 (3): 552–583. doi:10.2307/1222833. JSTOR 1222833.
  103. ^ Wittzell, Hakan (1999). "Chloroplast DNA variation and reticulate development in sexual and apomictic sections of dandelions". Molecular Environmental. 8 (12): 2023–2035. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.1999.00807.x. PMID 10632854. S2CID 25180463.
  104. ^ Dijk, Peter J. van (2003). "Ecological and evolutionary opportunities of apomixis: insights from Taraxacum and Chondrilla". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Order B. 358 (1434): 1113–1121. doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1302. PMC1693208. PMID 12831477.
  105. ^ Mallet, James; Beltrán, 1000.; Neukirchen, W.; Linares, M. (2007). "Natural hybridization in heliconiine collywobbles: the species boundary every bit a continuum". BMC Evolutionary Biological science. 7 (1): 28. doi:x.1186/1471-2148-vii-28. PMC1821009. PMID 17319954.
  106. ^ Ron, Santiago; Caminer, Marcel (2014). "Systematics of treefrogs of the Hypsiboas calcaratus and Hypsiboas fasciatus species circuitous (Anura, Hylidae) with the description of four new species". ZooKeys (370): ane–68. doi:10.3897/zookeys.370.6291. PMC3904076. PMID 24478591.
  107. ^ Geml, J.; Tulloss, R. East.; Laursen, Yard. A.; Sasanova, N. A.; Taylor, D. L. (2008). "Evidence for strong inter- and intracontinental phylogeographic structure in Amanita muscaria, a air current-dispersed ectomycorrhizal basidiomycete". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 48 (ii): 694–701. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2008.04.029. PMID 18547823.
  108. ^ "Defining a species". University of California Berkeley. Archived from the original on thirteen March 2017. Retrieved 12 March 2017.
  109. ^ Zachos 2016, p. 188.
  110. ^ Stamos, David N. (2003). The Species Problem: Biological Species, Ontology, and the Metaphysics of Biological science. Lexington Books. p. 330. ISBN978-0-7391-6118-0. Archived from the original on 12 March 2017.
  111. ^ Moritz, C.; Schneider, C. J.; Wake, D. B. (1992). "Evolutionary Relationships Within the Ensatina Eschscholtzii Circuitous Ostend the Ring Species Interpretation" (PDF). Systematic Biology. 41 (3): 273–291. doi:ten.1093/sysbio/41.iii.273. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 Jan 2018.
  112. ^ Irwin, D. East.; Bensch, Staffan; Irwin, Jessica H.; Toll, Trevor D. (2005). "Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species". Science. 307 (5708): 414–six. Bibcode:2005Sci...307..414I. doi:10.1126/science.1105201. PMID 15662011. S2CID 18347146.
  113. ^ Martens, Jochen; Päckert, Martin (2007). "Ring species – Do they exist in birds?". Zoologischer Anzeiger. 246 (4): 315–324. doi:10.1016/j.jcz.2007.07.004.
  114. ^ Alcaide, M.; Scordato, East. S. C.; Price, T. D.; Irwin, D. E. (2014). "Genomic divergence in a ring species complex". Nature. 511 (7507): 83–85. Bibcode:2014Natur.511...83A. doi:10.1038/nature13285. hdl:10261/101651. PMID 24870239. S2CID 4458956.
  115. ^ Liebers, Dorit; Knijff, Peter de; Helbig, Andreas J. (2004). "The herring dupe complex is non a ring species". Proceedings of the Royal Guild of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 271 (1542): 893–901. doi:x.1098/rspb.2004.2679. PMC1691675. PMID 15255043.
  116. ^ Highton, R. (1998). "Is Ensatina eschscholtzii a ring species?". Herpetologica. 54 (2): 254–278. JSTOR 3893431.
  117. ^ a b Barton, N. H. (June 2010). "What role does natural selection play in speciation?". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 365 (1547): 1825–1840. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0001. PMC2871892. PMID 20439284.
  118. ^ a b Vaux, Felix; Trewick, Steven A.; Morgan-Richards, Mary (2017). "Speciation through the looking-drinking glass". Biological Periodical of the Linnean Society. 120 (2): 480–488. doi:x.1111/bij.12872.
  119. ^ Zachos 2016, pp. 77–96.
  120. ^ Cook, Orator F. (30 March 1906). "Factors of species-germination". Scientific discipline. 23 (587): 506–507. Bibcode:1906Sci....23..506C. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.23.587.506. PMID 17789700.
  121. ^ Cook, Orator F. (November 1908). "Evolution Without Isolation". The American Naturalist. 42 (503): 727–731. doi:10.1086/279001. S2CID 84565616.
  122. ^ Via, Sara (16 June 2009). "Natural choice in action during speciation". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.Southward.A. 106 (Suppl ane): 9939–9946. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.9939V. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901397106. PMC2702801. PMID 19528641.
  123. ^ Mayr, Ernst (1982). "Speciation and Macroevolution". Evolution. 36 (6): 1119–1132. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1982.tb05483.x. PMID 28563569. S2CID 27401899.
  124. ^ Pennisi, Elizabeth (2004). "Researchers Trade Insights about Gene Swapping" (PDF). Science. 334–335: 335. Archived from the original (PDF) on eighteen February 2006.
  125. ^ Zhaxybayeva, Olga; Peter Gogarten, J. (2004). "Cladogenesis, coalescence and the development of the three domains of life" (PDF). Trends in Genetics. xx (four): 182–187. doi:ten.1016/j.tig.2004.02.004. PMID 15041172. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 March 2009.
  126. ^ Venton, Danielle (2017). "Highlight: Applying the Biological Species Concept beyond All of Life". Genome Biological science and Evolution. ix (3): 502–503. doi:10.1093/gbe/evx045. PMC5381533. PMID 28391326.
  127. ^ Bobay, Louis-Marie; Ochman, Howard (2017). "Biological Species Are Universal across Life's Domains". Genome Biology and Development. nine (3): 491–501. doi:10.1093/gbe/evx026. PMC5381558. PMID 28186559.
  128. ^ Kunin, Due west. Eastward.; Gaston, Kevin, eds. (1996). The Biology of Rarity: Causes and consequences of rare–common differences. ISBN978-0-412-63380-5. Archived from the original on five September 2015.
  129. ^ Stearns, Beverly Peterson; Stearns, Stephen C. (2000). Watching, from the Border of Extinction. New Oasis, London: Yale Academy Press. p. preface x. ISBN978-0-300-08469-half-dozen.
  130. ^ Zachos 2016, p. 82.
  131. ^ Zachos, Frank E. (2015). "Taxonomic inflation, the Phylogenetic Species Concept and lineages in the Tree of Life – a cautionary comment on species splitting". Periodical of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Enquiry. 53 (2): 180–184. doi:10.1111/jzs.12088.
  132. ^ Agapow, Paul‐Michael; Bininda‐Emonds, Olaf R. P.; Crandall, Keith A.; Gittleman, John L.; Mace, Georgina Yard.; Marshall, Jonathon C.; Purvis, Andy (2004). "The Bear upon of Species Concept on Biodiversity Studies" (PDF). The Quarterly Review of Biology. 79 (2): 161–179. CiteSeerX10.1.1.535.2974. doi:10.1086/383542. JSTOR 10.1086/383542. PMID 15232950. S2CID 2698838. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 Jan 2018.
  133. ^ a b Hey, Jody (July 2001). "The listen of the species problem". Trends in Ecology and Development. 16 (7): 326–329. doi:x.1016/S0169-5347(01)02145-0. PMID 11403864.
  134. ^ Haig, Susan Grand.; Allendorf, F.W. (2006). "Hybrids and Policy". In Scott, J. Michael; Goble, D. D.; Davis, Frank W. (eds.). The Endangered Species Act at Thirty, Volume 2: Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes. Washington: Island Printing. pp. 150–163. Archived from the original on 7 February 2018.
  135. ^ Mishler, Brent D. (1999). Wilson, R. (ed.). Getting Rid of Species? (PDF). Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. MIT Press. pp. 307–315. ISBN978-0262731232. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 January 2018.
  136. ^ Vane-Wright, R. I.; Humphries, C. J.; Williams, P. H. (1991). "What to protect? – systematics and the desperation of choice". Biological Conservation. 55 (three): 235–254. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(91)90030-D.
  137. ^ Leroi, Armand Marie (2014). The Lagoon: How Aristotle Invented Science. Bloomsbury. pp. 88–90. ISBN978-1-4088-3622-4.
  138. ^ Ray, John (1686). Historia plantarum generalis, Tome I, Libr. I. p. Chap. XX, page twoscore. , quoted in Mayr, Ernst (1982). The growth of biological thought: diversity, development, and inheritance . Belknap Printing. p. 256. ISBN9780674364455.
  139. ^ Davis, P. H.; Heywood, V. H. (1973). Principles of Angiosperm Taxonomy. Huntington, NY: Robert Due east. Krieger Publishing Company. p. 17.
  140. ^ Reveal, James L.; Pringle, James S. (1993). "7. Taxonomic Botany and Floristics". Flora of Due north America. Oxford University Press. pp. 160–161. ISBN978-0-19-505713-iii.
  141. ^ Simpson, George Gaylord (1961). Principles of Animate being Taxonomy. Columbia University Press. pp. 56–57.
  142. ^ Mahoney, Edward P. (1987). "Lovejoy and the Hierarchy of Existence". Journal of the History of Ideas. 48 (2): 211–230. doi:10.2307/2709555. JSTOR 2709555.
  143. ^ "Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778)". UCMP Berkeley. Archived from the original on 30 April 2011. Retrieved 24 January 2018.
  144. ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard: Belknap Harvard. pp. 170–197. ISBN978-0-674-00613-3.
  145. ^ Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea (third ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. pp. 177–223 and passim. ISBN978-0-520-23693-half dozen.
  146. ^ Menand, Louis (2001). The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. pp. 123–124. ISBN978-0-374-70638-8.

Sources [edit]

  • Claridge, G. F.; Dawah, H. A.; Wilson, M. R., eds. (1997). Species: The Units of Biodiversity. Chapman & Hall. ISBN978-0-412-63120-seven.
  • Wheeler, Quentin; Meier, Rudolf, eds. (2000). Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory: A Debate. Columbia University Press. ISBN978-0-231-10143-ane.
  • Zachos, Frank E. (2016). Species Concepts in Biology: Historical Development, Theoretical Foundations and Practical Relevance. Springer. ISBN978-three-319-44964-vii.

External links [edit]

  • Barcoding of species
  • Catalogue of Life
  • European Species Names in Linnaean, Czech, English, German and French
  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry: Species
  • VisualTaxa
  • Wikispecies – The free species directory that anyone can edit from the Wikimedia Foundation

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Posted by: rodriguezmolaing.blogspot.com

0 Response to "Which Scientists Classify Species Using An Organism's Physical Apperance And Genetic Makeup"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel